
'bV 



m^^S 










^-.9'^ 












,0 ^^_ 






vv 



■*^^.. 



^o. 












<<. 



.°-^^ 



r*. 



.*= 



J 



[The folloiving article lately aprieared in the Albany Exjjress, 
and is understood, to he from the pen of the reporter of the N. Y. 

(hurt of Appeals.'] 

The Political Status of the Rebellious States, and the 
Action of the President in respect thereto. 

There is this simple question: Ccin the pe(»})k' of a State 
forfeit their political rights, so that, politically, they cease to be 
a State, under the Constitution of the United States ? 

I answer, yes. 

The political existence of a State within this Union can con- 
tinue no longer than the political rights of the people constitut- 
ing such State continue. For, the constitutionally recognized 
political rights of the people within the limits of the State, con- 
stitute the political existence of the State; and until such rights 
exist, and are constitutionally recognized, the State has no 
political existence in the Union. 

The people of a State can go into rehellion against the 
National Government, individually and politically. It matters 
not how many of the people individually go into such rehellion. 
as long as the political authority of the State is loyal to the 
Union, and so directs its power as to maintain that loyalty, the 
State is nc.Jt politically in rebellion, and no citizen of the State 
will be presumed to be disloyal. But when the political author- 
ity of the State, as such, takes arms against the nation's life, 
and publicly declares and acts for the overthrow of the nation, 
then the citizens of sucli State are, by such State action, pre- 
sumptively in rebellion, and politically responsible therefor. 
By such act of the State Government its political life within the 
Union is destroyed, and it becomes, as a political institution, 
under the Constitution of the United States, defunct. Its 
political existence as a State has ceased, by the cessation, on the 
part of the citizens thereof, of all political rights under the 



Xatit)niil Govoniinriir; so that nothing remains on which to basf; 
a political State, under the Federal Constitution; for there can 
be no State, politically, where tliere are no people* vested with 
political ri<i;]its. 

The political condition, tlien, of the people of these reheliious 
States is simply this: The constitutional authority of the 
National Government, during the rehellion, extended, de Jure, 
throughout the entire limits of the national domain, and could 
not he excluded or withdrawn from any part thereof, except by 
conquest, or by the constitutionally expressed will of the people 
of the United States. It might be excluded de facto for a time; 
as was the case during the reliellion in the rebel States. But its 
authority de Jnre eoiitinued. Now its tiutliority de facto has 
been re-established over every i)art of its territory by the force of 
its arms; so that the authority of the United States now stands 
forth supreme, de facto and dejure, and tlie individuals and the; 
State institutions that made was u})on it are disarmed and 
powerless before it. 

There can be no doubt then as to the political stat'is of these 
States or of the individuals that levied war against the National 
Government. Being overthrown, they are divested of all politi- 
cal rights — nay, more, of all political capacity, under the National 
Government: and. until pardoned, tliey have no caj)acity to take 
political rights under the National Constitution. 

The President can, by executive clemency, give to these 
people capacity to receive ])olitical rights; that is, he can pardon 
them; but that is all lu; can do. It requires the authority of 
the people, expressed through the National Legislature, to 
invest them with ])olitical rights and ]towei-s, making them mem- 
bers of the national family. 

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can withdraw the 
army *>i' the United States from this rebellious territory and 
leave the peojile there to act out their pleasure. But he cannot 
reinvest" them with any forfeited riglits and powers. He cannot 
confer uj)on iheiii any civil ])rivileges; nor do I think he has 
ever attempted anything of the kind. His action in withdraXv- 
ing his Provisional Governors from certain States is performed 
as Commandi-r-in-Chief, conferring no civil rights, expressly or 
by implication. By so doing he virtually declares that he sur- 
renders to the peo])le of the United States this territory Avith its 
people, to be governed by their authority under the Constitution. 



In otlior words, he brings the people of the United States, with 
their govorniiiental authority, face to tace with the people of 
these rebellious States, and says, I no longer interpose my 
authority as Commander-in-Chief, goyerning by martial law. 
1 pro})Ose tliat they now come under the civil authority of that 
Goyernment they attempted to destroy — the Goyernment of the 
United States. He does not propose to decide upon the legiti- 
m.acy of those State Goyernments; he only decides that martial 
law is no longer needed there, and withdraws. 

Politically, then, these States went into rebellion haye no ex- 
istence. To say they went out, or are out of the Union, is to 
make a false use of language. Politically they haye no consti- 
tional existence as States anywhere; because they committed 
felo de se wlien they made eyery citizen thereof presumptiyely 
and politically a traitor to the National Goyernment. 

As many of the peojde of those States as haye come within 
the j)royisions of the amnesty proclamation in good faith, and 
haye accepted of its terms, are yested with a capacity to take 
political rights, and thus to become the basis of a political insti- 
tution known as a State. But such haye only the capacity. 
The Goyernment of the United States, as the expt)nent of the 
national will, must determine when, upon what conditions, and 
with what restrictions, they shall be invested with the rights and 
prerogatives of national citizenship. 

Whether these rebellious States shall again be brought into 
the Union or not, clothed with the political power of sovereign 
States, is not a questicm of political right, but one of jiolitical 
statesmanship. It is certain that it will not be policy to consti- 
tute them a part of the national body, until they have within 
themselves some national life and spirit. To invest them with 
national powers before th(?y have a national ambition, a national 
pride and national love, would be in the highest degree .iinwise, 
if not suicidal. 



^ ♦. * ♦ 



















'^^o^ 









*«„o^ .0 - 



'y,^^'- % 












^\- 



3^^ * e « o - ,,0'^ 


















»""*.. •• 



^0- 









. . ' «o 



■ J' 'Mm- ^-i-.^^ '" ' 










>. * e « o ' . '^ 

1 ^*3 



h^-^^ 



„ . -1~ .1 




